From hero to Public Enemy Number One

It is a maxim that should be a cliché by now.

But given the current Indian reality, it is worth repeating again and again: “The true test of a principle is when you apply it to somebody or something that you do not like, not just when it suits your own beliefs.”

 

I have been constantly reminded of this over the last three or four days as the furore over remarks made by Ranveer Allahbadia and others on a YouTube show called India’s Got Latent caused a national controversy. (Yes, it’s ‘Latent’ and not ‘Talent’—geddit? So droll, right?)

 

   The most famous guest on the show was, of course, the very successful YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia, distinguished in the past for many things. These include an alleged love of beef (unusual, given his hero status in Sanatani circles); his cringe-making, sycophantic interviews with government figures, all conducted in the kneeling position; his encouragement to pro-government types to attack liberals (“Who are the Indians you would like to see thrown out of our country?”); and for being one of the Prime Minister‘s favourites on YouTube. As Narendra Modi publicly told him: “Log kahenge tum Modi ji ki baat kar rahe ho! Phir kahenge BJP wale ban gaye ho!”

 

   Following his endorsement by the government with the ‘Disruptor Of The Year' Award’ last year, his joyous banter with the Prime Minister on a public platform, and his willingness to prostrate himself before power, the BeerBicepsGuy, as he styles himself—or is it Beef Biceps? I am never quite sure—became a huge favourite with right-wing social media types. If you dared criticise him, you would be savaged online by self-proclaimed Hindu nationalists who treated him as their very own loyal court jester.

 

   All this has suddenly changed.

 

   Appearing on India’s Got Latent, Allahbadia and others made several dodgy jokes, many of which were plagiarised from better English/American shows and clumsily translated to sound cruder and raunchier. Even Beef Biceps himself admitted, after the controversy began, that none of the jokes was very funny.

 

   One of these jokes involved watching your parents have sex. It was, to most sensibilities, offensive and disgusting. And it was entirely in keeping with the general tone of the show.

 

   For reasons I still cannot figure out, that one episode of India’s Got Latent was enough for ‘Hindu nationalist’ social media to switch from total love to total hatred. Apart from the abuse Allahbadia has received, FIRs have been filed against him, and there have been demands for the arrest of everyone who participated in the show. Despite Allahbadia’s grovelling video apology—delivered presumably from the same kneeling position he adopted for his interviews with government figures—the tempo of the attacks has not let up.

 

   Anyone who has attempted even a mild defence of free speech has been trolled by handles describing themselves as ‘patriot’ or ‘Hindu nationalist’. Some of the trolling has taken exactly the form of the jokes being objected to. For instance, I have been told that I only spoke up for free speech because I enjoyed watching my parents have sex.

 

   As I write, it has actually got worse. The BJP Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Devendra Fadnavis, has sent the police to the studio where the programme was shot, and there is talk of arrests.

 

   Two questions need to be asked.

 

   One: what the hell happened? How did the pin-up boy of the Hindutva-supporting classes suddenly turn into a villain?

 

   Four explanations have been offered. One is to take the controversy at face value. People genuinely thought Beef Biceps had gone too far. This is a reasonable explanation, especially if you believe that hate, abuse, and trolling on social media are not orchestrated and do not follow a central directive.

 

   The second is that India’s Got Latent served as a useful distraction when the government was dealing with bad news. For instance, news TV channels preferred to focus on Allahbadia rather than the resignation of the Manipur Chief Minister after two years of unnecessary bloodshed.

 

"Yes, there are grounds for restricting speech: defamation, national security, hate speech, and incitement to violence, for instance. But India’s Got Latent fits into none of those categories."

   The third is that a broadcasting bill seeking to censor the Internet will soon be introduced in Parliament, and the powers-that-be wanted to demonstrate why such laws are necessary. If this involved sacrificing the faithful Allahbadia, well then, so be it. Besides, by using him as justification, the authorities can claim greater credibility: Look! We were even willing to act against our own!

 

   And the fourth explanation is that there has been some sort of falling-out between Allahbadia and his official sponsors that we don’t know about.

 

   All of these explanations are plausible enough. But none fully explains the suddenness with which Allahbadia went from hero to Public Enemy Number One.

 

   The second important question we need to ask is: what should the government do about India’s Got Latent and the offensive jokes that were cracked on the show?

 

   The short answer is: nothing.

 

   I say this for both philosophical and practical reasons.

 

   I have written endless articles about freedom of speech so I won’t waste your time by rehashing the arguments yet again.

 

   Yes, there are grounds for restricting speech: defamation, national security, hate speech, and incitement to violence, for instance. But India’s Got Latent fits into none of those categories.

 

   It doesn’t matter if some of us are disgusted by what was said on the show. It is not the job of the Indian state to swing into action against its own citizens because someone is disgusted.

 

   For instance, I was deeply disgusted by Allahbadia’s nauseating interviews. But I accepted that he had every right to interview people in any way he wanted. And besides, I doubt the government would have acted against interview shows it had sponsored and organised. So ‘I am really disgusted’ is not a good enough reason to abridge someone else’s freedom.

 

   It has been suggested that full freedom of speech protections should not be extended to those who engage in commercial activities. If you hope to be paid for something you say, then your freedom should be restricted or, at the very least, subject to controls.

 

   This is a dangerous argument because it can easily be used to shut down the media. The moment the government does not like anything that appears in the press or on television, it will say that the journalists in question were paid a salary, so this is a commercial activity and their right to freedom of speech can be abridged.

 

   Which leads us to the political aspect.

 

   We live in an India where a certain kind of speech is freer than ever before. The worst kind of abuse and hatred are freely traded, not just on new media (the web or social media) but also on news channels. Such hatred is hard to restrict because the Internet is designed to foil attempts to control it—but also because there is no political will to do so.

 

   At the other extreme, while hatred flourishes, there are areas where there is no free speech. Comedians are routinely criticised, attacked, or prevented from holding shows. Even people like Vir Das, whose success has made India proud, have to defy attempts to shut them up. Others are even less fortunate. The imprisonment of Munawar Faruqui in Madhya Pradesh was all about a joke that he did not actually crack.

 

   Some of this intolerance comes from one side of the political divide. It is clear, for instance, that the reason the acclaimed writer Aatish Taseer is being denied a visa is that he has been critical of the government. But all parties are guilty, to varying degrees, of suppressing free speech when it suits them. Non-BJP governments in states like Chhattisgarh, Bengal, and Maharashtra have also used the police against their critics.

 

   It would be disastrous for us to fall into the trap of applauding action against India’s Got Latent even if we were disgusted by the show. It is the principle, not the individuals or the jokes, that is important.

 

   And the true test of a person’s character is whether they are willing to stand up for the rights of someone who has said something they find deeply offensive. It’s easy to support free speech when you agree with what is being said.

 

   But it is more important to fight for it even when you don’t agree.